Summary: Mr X complained about various actions of the council when it was considering child protection action in respect of his children. We found the Council failed to communicate properly and promptly and failed to take some actions it had agreed to. We recommended an apology and a payment to reflect distress.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
1. Failed to give him notice of a court hearing on 1 June at which the Council sought a care order.
2. The Council told lies in paperwork it submitted to the court.
3. There were issues with the venue for contact and a parenting assessment was not completed.
4. Failed to ensure his son was safe while in care because Y received injuries in two care placements.
5. That the Council sacked a social worker who spoke up about his case.
6. That the Council did not arrange for Z and Y to receive culturally appropriate food in care placements and that they were not supported to observe Eid.
7. His sons overheard a conversation between social workers on the way to a child protection medical in which the officers discussed placing them in care. It was played on loudspeaker in the car. This was the first they knew of this and it led them to abscond.
8. It took the Council two days to tell him that his sons had absconded and were missing.
9. That Y was able to get hold of cannabis and cocaine while in care.
10. There were 7 changes of social worker over the period his sons were in care.
11. The Council did not send him a safety plan that he was expected to adhere to.
12. The Council should have been referred to CAMHS and this has still not happened.
13. The Council did not respond to his complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. We are considering the complaint from 2022. We are unable to consider elements of Mr X’s case that were considered by the courts.
5. We have not investigated points a) to c) as these were matters that were before the courts. We have not considered point d) as this has also been before the courts. We have not considered point e) of the complaint as any action the Council decided to take relates to a council staff member and not to Mr X.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information Mr X provided and the complaint he made. I asked the Council for information and I considered its response to the complaint.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s Policy on Managing Vexatious Customers

8. The Council’s policy explains that actions that may be considered unreasonable or vexatious may include:
• Foul or abusive language.
• Intimidating or threatening behaviour.
• Communicating in an inappropriate, time-consuming manner (calling or emailing multiple times about the same issues).
9. The policy states that if it considers someone’s behaviour is vexatious, they will send a warning letter explaining why and stating it will not be tolerated.
10. If someone continues to behave in the same way, the Council may impose contact restrictions and/or limit their contact with the Council.

Background

11. Mr X’s two sons (referred to as Y & Z in this statement) have lived with him since 2021. The children were subject to child protection plans.
12. In May 2022 Y got into trouble and school. Following comments he made at school, social services carried out child protection enquiries under Section 47 of the Children Act.
13. A social worker spoke to Mr X on 17 May 2022 and agreed a safety plan with him. The safety plan was for Y to stay with a relative until the investigations were concluded and for Mr X not to have unsupervised contact. Mr X told us he did not agree to a safety plan, but in his complaint to us he stated he had immediately agreed with a request from social services to send both boys to live with a family relative, which was the action agreed.
14. The social worker also spoke to the relative. The Council told us Y was subsequently seen at Mr X’s house, in breach of the safety plan. Y was then taken to his mother’s house, but several days later Y returned to Mr X’s house, in breach of the safety plan. The Council says on 31 May Mr X confirmed the safety plan was breached but agreed to the boys staying with a relative with no unsupervised contact with him.
15. On 1 June 2022 social services took both boys for a child protection medical while they were staying with a family relative. The Council arranged an emergency care hearing the same day. Mr X complains that he was not given any notification of this hearing. Court papers show the court was aware that the hearing was arranged urgently and that Mr X and the children’s mother would not be party to the proceedings. The court granted an interim care order.
16. Mr X says, on the way to their destination on 1 June, the social worker took a call on loudspeaker and discussed plans to take the boys into care. Mr X complains that overhearing the telephone call in the car led to both boys running away from social services staff. Y, as soon as they arrived and then Z, later in the day.
17. Mr X complained that he was not told his children went missing, and they had been missing for two days before they were told by the Council. The Council acknowledged it had no record of direct communication with Mr X about the boys being missing but it noted their mother was aware and had been in contact with Mr X who had contacted the police on 2 June.
18. Mr X says he was told by the police that his children were missing. While he was on the telephone to the police, he missed a telephone call from a social worker. When he tried to return this, he could get no answer. Mr X told the boy’s mother they were missing following his call with the police. Mr X says he did not receive contact from the Council to tell them about the boys going missing.
19. The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint noted telephone calls and emails from Mr X and the boy’s mother indicated the parents were aware on the evening of 1 June. It did not address how they had been made aware. There was contact between social workers and the boy’s mother on 2 June.
20. Y and Z were both found on 3 June 2022. The Council collected them. Y was reported missing again a few hours later. Z also absconded from his foster care placement later that evening. Both boys were missing again until 6 June when they were found at Mr X’s property.

Care Placements

21. Y was placed in a foster placement in the north of England in early June.
22. Mr X says that while in this placement Y received injuries. Some of these issues were not reported to Mr X straight away – the Council apologised for this in its complaint response.
23. The Council told us Y’s mother reported that Y had been able to get hold of cannabis while in his placement. The Council discussed this with Y at a visit, but he only referred to another resident having cannabis. The managers of the placement agreed to place more staff on duty overnight to minimise any further risks to Y before he left for his new placement the following day.
24. The Council arranged contact between Mr X and both children on 22 June.
25. During the contact visit on 22 June, Y absconded in the midlands. The police were alerted. The records noted various steps that were taken to monitor the situation and to try and locate Y. Y was considered to be vulnerable and at risk of harm due to his age.
26. On 27 June Y returned to his mother’s house and the Council took him back into care.
27. On 29 June Mr X complained about various issues with the Council actions regarding taking the boys into care and how they were safeguarded.
28. The Council met Mr X on 6 July to discuss the complaint and it sent a response to the complaint on 3 August.
29. On 14 July Mr X complained further. He said he had not received a response to the complaint. He added that Z had not been provided with halal meat or been given an opportunity to practice his religion. He considered his complaints had not been taken seriously.
30. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 3 August 2022. It responded to the points Mr X had raised. I have taken account of the Council’s response but I have not repeated it in this statement.
31. At a court hearing at the end of August 2022, the court noted Y had returned to his mother’s care and Z had returned to Mr X’s care.
32. On 12 October the Council responded to Mr X further. It stated that it considered Mr X’s complaint dated 29 June to be closed following its meeting with Mr X on 6 July and response in August. The Council addressed issues Mr X had raised since then. These included school placements and whether Z’s religion was taken into account at his foster placements. The Council stated its records showed that Z was offered a range of foods including halal meat and the Council had worked hard to facilitate family contact over Eid, recognising its importance. The Council noted the children’s education would have been disrupted to some extent by their moves between placements. However, the virtual school team had done everything possible to limit this. The Council noted both boys had school places from 31 October. Mr X’s complaint about the progression of their case through Looked After Children reviews and about the Independent Reviewing Officer’s actions was commented on. However, as these actions were being directed by the courts we have not considered them in our investigation.
33. The Council’s letter of 12 October recognised Mr X as a strong advocate for his children. However, it stated the tone of Mr X’s communications with the local authority and the amount of contacts Mr X made was unreasonable. It stated any further communications about current care needs should be sent to their social worker. They would respond once a week. They would also make contact to make arrangements for visits and to progress actions as normal. Where the social worker was not available, Mr X could contact a duty social worker.
34. On 17 October the Council stated its letter of 12 October was its final response. It stated as care proceedings were ongoing Mr X could raise issues relating to care and practice before the courts. The Council stated it would not consider further complaints about matters in the court arena. It recognised Mr X had the right to complain and any correspondence that related to the court proceedings would be directed to Mr X’s legal representation. The Council further stated:

“We do note you have made a number of complaints and grumbles about everyone involved in the care of your children, which are considered abusive and generally unreasonable. We are therefore invoking the vexatious complainants policy. Any emails of complaint that we receive from you will be read, but we will not be responding to you on each matter”.

Specific Complaints and our view

Complaint f - culturally appropriate food & observing Eid

35. The Council provided notes from its records. These recorded that arrangements were made for contact with Mr X and the boys’ mother during Eid. Notes from June, July and August 2022 record that social workers had raised the need for halal food and the actions that had been taken. The Council told us a placement plan from August 2022 recorded that the boys were Muslim, not practising, but should be supported to attend a mosque if they wished to. It also noted their dietary needs.
36. Mr X provided evidence that the boys had suggested they had not received halal food on occasions. However, there is evidence culturally appropriate food was considered and provided.
37. On balance, there is evidence the issue was considered appropriately, so I do not find there was fault in this regard.

Complaint g – Z&Y overhearing a call about their care proceedings

38. The Council accepts that a call took place about the boys being taken into care while they were in the car. It is likely this was overheard and that this led or contributed to the boys later absconding. At this stage, Z was aware the Council was seeking an interim care order. It is not clear if Y was aware at the time. In any event, the Council failed to properly consider the impact of holding a conversation about proposed care proceedings involving the boys while they were present and able to hear what was being said. This was poor practice and constitutes fault by the Council. The Council stated work had since been done to recognise the need to communicate properly to children about what is happening prior to action being taken to avoid a reoccurrence of this.

Complaint h - It took the Council two days to tell Mr X his sons were missing (on 1 June)

39. Based on the information provided by Mr X and the Council, there seems no evidence that the Council contacted Mr X and the boy’s mother to tell them they were missing on 1 June. Rather, it seems the parents discovered this via contact with the police first. There was contact between social workers and the boys’ mother on 2 June, but the Council has not indicated it had contact with Mr X.
40. It is clear Mr X was aware that the boys were missing the same day that this occurred, but it does not seem that this was communicated promptly by the Council. Communicating this promptly was important, and on balance I found the Council’s lack of contact was fault.

Complaint i – Y was able to get hold of cannabis while in care

41. There is evidence that the Council addressed the concern about cannabis. Because a safety plan was put in place for Y at the placement, the Council did not agree Y was at risk. The Council also referred the report about cannabis to the Local Authority Dedicated Officer as a potential safeguarding issue. I found no fault in how the issue was dealt with.

Complaint j – 7 changes of social worker

42. The Council accepted there were too many changes of social worker in Y&Z’s case. Some of the social workers involved had left. It upheld Mr X’s complaint about this and acknowledged frequent changes would impact on the children trusting future social workers. The Council explained that the aim is to retain the same social worker until any proceedings are concluded. This was not possible in this case. The Council noted there were national shortages of qualified social workers but it was working hard to reduce this and mitigate the impact of any changes in staff. While changes of social worker in Y&Z’s case were unavoidable in this instance, there were a high number of changes over a relatively short period. We have recorded this as service failure.

Complaint k – the Council did not send him a safety plan

43. Part of Mr X’s complaint was that the Council agreed to send him an email in May setting out the agreed safety plan. However, no email was sent. The Council upheld Mr X’s complaint that the safety plan had not been put in writing, but it stated its records clearly recorded a safety plan was agreed and Mr X stated he would adhere to it. There was fault by the Council in not confirming the safety plan in writing. I acknowledge Mr X says he did not agree a safety plan. However, in his complaint to us, Mr X stated, in May, at the request of social services, he immediately sent his sons to live with a family member. This may not have been recognised by Mr X as a formal ‘safety plan’ but this was the action agreed as a safety plan. On balance I found it that not putting the safety plan in writing caused no significant injustice as the safety plan requirements were likely to have been explained to Mr X over the telephone.

Complaint l - the Council has not referred Y & Z to CAMHS as it agreed

44. The Council acknowledges that therapy was requested for both boys on 19 July 2023. It agreed to look into this. The Council provided no evidence this had been taken forward. It noted in November 2022 that a social worker discussed a youth counselling service that may be available but there was a long waiting list. The Council stated, as of February 2023 both boys had a youth worker at another council. They would be working on anxiety and emotional support, so support was now in place. Overall, the Council did not evidence that the agreed referral was followed up within a reasonable timescale. This was fault.

Complaint m - the Council did not respond to his complaints

45. The main complaint Mr X made was about the actions taken by the Council in respect of his children and issues that occurred in care placements. Mr X raised this complaint on 29 June 2022. The Council met with Mr X on 6 July to discuss the complaint and noted additional issues. It responded to the complaint on 22 August 2022. Mr X was dissatisfied with the response and the Council responded further on 12 and 17 October 2022. The further response by the Council indicated some issues had been upheld and would not be revisited. It responded to some additional points.
46. The further response from the Council stated the number of emails sent to members of the council and the tone of communications was unreasonable. The Council placed restrictions on contact. It stated all contact should be sent to the social worker (or duty social worker) and they would respond once per week. It stated any issues raised about matters before the court would not be dealt with through the complaints process.
47. The Council provided a summary of other complaints Mr X had made during 2022 and the responses it had sent. On the basis of the information we have seen, I found the Council had responded to the complaints Mr X raised.

Vexatious Complainant Behaviour

48. The Council stated that during 2022 Mr X was sending a high number of emails to a wide range of staff. He was also making lots of telephone calls. Some of these emails and calls were considered abusive and were extremely upsetting for the staff trying to deal with him. The Council acknowledged that its letter of 12 October was incorrect. It should have warned Mr X about his behaviour and asked him to cease the unreasonable actions. Instead, it stated that the policy had been invoked already and contact restrictions had been applied. However, the Council says the contract restrictions were not enforced, and inappropriate communications also continued even after his children were transferred to another LA. The way the Council invoked its policy without a prior warning was fault. However, this did not lead to any significant injustice to Mr X.

Summary - Was the Council at fault

49. We have found there was fault by the Council in some of the complaints we are considering.
• There is some evidence culturally appropriate food was considered. There was no fault in this regard.
• The way the Council communicated what was happening to the boys was poor. The boys overheard a call between social workers about care proceedings while in a car, having been taken from a relative’s home for a medical. Without proper discussion and context, this was inappropriate and likely contributed to the boys absconding. The Council has addressed this area of practice in response to the complaint. However, this caused Mr X injustice.
• We found the Council had not promptly communicated the fact that the boys had absconded on 1 June. This is something that should be communicated to parents in a timely way. I recognise this was a concern to Mr X, but it is clear he became aware of the issue the same day, so the injustice was limited.
• We found the council properly considered the issue raised about cannabis availability.
• The frequent changes of social worker amount to service failure.
• There was fault in not providing a written confirmation of the agreed safety plan. This did not cause injustice because we found on balance, the safety plan actions it had been verbally agreed with Mr X.
• The Council was at fault for not making a referral to CAMHS. I understand the boys now have access to a youth worker who can work with them about anxiety and can provide emotional support.
• The Council should follow its policy of warning individuals before invoking the vexatious policy and imposing contact restrictions. Its approach in this case was fault. However, we did not find it led to injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

50. Within four weeks of our final decision:
51. The Council should provide a written apology to Mr X for the fault we identified. The apology should adhere to our guidance on making effective apologies. This can be found on our website, within our Guidance on Remedy here.
52. To recognise the distress caused primarily by the failure to properly communicate to Mr X’s sons what was happening when they were taken for a medical, I recommend the Council pays Mr X £200.
53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

54. There was fault by the Council. I have now completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman